American labor leaders quite often like to claim that they generally support "free trade" - just not this particular free trade agreement - because of some specific problem (or series of problems) that negotiators failed to resolve in the deal. Usually, the unions' "go-to flaw" covers what they deem to be insufficient labor protections in the FTA partner's market which, if not resolved, would hurt poor foreign workers. This "concern" paints the unions not as selfish thugs using political muscle to shield their antiquated industries and/or overpriced labor contracts from duty-free foreign competition, but instead the altruistic global protector of poor workers everywhere. For example, late last week Richard Trumka, the AFL-CIO's top dog, said the following about the US-Korea FTA:
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said he would support an altered version of the Bush administration's proposed free-trade agreement with South Korea, but only if the pact reduces nontariff barriers in Korea and protects workers' rights, among other considerations. "We don't oppose trade," he said in an interview. "We oppose the type of one-way trade we've had in the past." The existing proposed agreement was reached in 2007, but Congress hasn't approved it.Leaving aside NTBs for now (more on that canard here), Trumka's "workers' rights" comments are par for the course. However, a quick Google search reveals just how inane this particular criticism is and, even more importantly, undermines the sincerity of the unions' whole line of argument. You see, while it might be arguable that a country like Colombia has, despite immense and laudable progress, some lingering labor problems, it's absurd to argue that the KORUS FTA needs to be scuttled because of South Korea's insufficient labor protections. As but one example, consider the fact that the International Labor Organization reports that Korea has ratified 24 ILO conventions, while the United States has ratified only eleven. Of course, for a whole host of reasons I'd never be one to use ILO standards as some sort of benchmark for the strength of a country's commitment to workers rights, but do you know who would? Yep, Richard Trumka's AFL-CIO:
Reports from respected international organizations, such as the U.N.’s International Labor Organization (ILO), show that the laws of Colombia fall far short of the core labor rights, considered a minimum set of rights to be guaranteed by all countries regardless of level of development.In short, the AFL-CIO uses the ILO as an FTA benchmark when doing so will give it a reason to oppose the FTA, but abandons the very same standard when it doesn't serve the unions' protectionist purposes. Pretty admirable and altruistic, huh?

Blech.

Then again, Trumka’s contradictory comments are valuable in one sense: they reveal just how hollow the AFL-CIO’s “support” for free trade really is. For them, the “labor rights” issue is just an automatic excuse to oppose an FTA without regard to the agreement’s actual merits or, in particular, its effects on workers’ rights. Seen in this light, one can easily understand Trumka’s silly KORUS comments as just a kind of Pavlovian “auto-reply” - when asked about the trade agreement he just reflexively uttered “blah blah blah labor rights concerns blah blah blah,” figuring that - even though the AFL-CIO’s own ILO metric deems the KORUS FTA to be a resounding success – his organization would come up with something to oppose before the agreement got to Congress for a vote.

Of course, for those of us who pay close attention to trade issues, the unions’ unscrupulous, goalpost-moving FTA opposition is nothing new. They'll always find something wrong with whatever FTA is under consideration, and, as I’ve previously noted, this miserable strategy has a lot of adherents in Congress too. And it’s not like most folks in developing countries actually believe in the sincerity of American labor unions’ claims – indeed, they often vocally oppose the claims of mustachioed heavies like Richard Trumka who brazenly claim that they speak for the world’s working men and women.

Nevertheless, noting union hypocrisy on trade is still an important exercise, given the pull that Trumka and his buddies have in this White House and on the Hill. So until that changes and the AFL-CIO and other unions lose their clout in Washington – a trend that, as AEI's Claude Barfield notes, might actually be starting to occur (dare to dream!) – it's always valuable to point out just how awful American labor unions actually are on free trade and just how empty their promises of eventual "support" really are.

Related

It appears that the US-Korea FTA has spawned a rather public disagreement among US labor unions - one that, upon closer review, proves that organized labor's altruistic complaints about US trade agreements hide their real motivation: good ol' fashioned protectionism. AEI's Claude Barfield provides a nice summary of the union spat here:

Yesterday, President Obama sent three trade agreements to Congress for approval. While each of the trade agreements were negotiated differently, they are all share one thing in common. These three agreements are an integral part of the President’s efforts to increase opportunities
for U.S. businesses, farmers, and workers through improved access for
their products and services in foreign markets. Each supports
President Obama’s National Export Initiative goal of doubling U.S.
exports by 2015.All Trade Promotion Agreements have one thing in common. They reduce barriers to U.S. exports, and protect U.S. interests and enhance the rule of law in the partner country. The reduction of trade barriers and the creation of a more stable and transparent trading and investment environment make it easier and cheaper for U.S. companies to export their products and services to trading partner markets.This results in jobs here in America.The most common question about these agreements is, "What exactly is in them?" Below the fold are some of the key specifics for each agreement.

Ford Motor Co. of Canada, Ltd., condemned the federal government’s decision to sign a free trade agreement with South Korea Tuesday, arguing similar agreements in the U.S. and Europe have only exacerbated trade deficits with the Asian country.
“As a global company committed to free trade, Ford supports well-negotiated agreements that open new markets for vehicles produced in Canada. For this reason, we cannot support the Canada-South Korea free trade agreement,” said Dianne Craig, Ford of Canada chief executive, in a statement.

It's actually kinda sad that a study showing that the reduction or elimination of nations' bilateral/regional trade barriers results in more trade (exports and imports) among them is a much-needed addition to the trade policy debate, but, well, it is. And, as usual, Cato's Dan Griswold has us covered with a great new paper.

[Ed note: This is the third of a three-part series in which I'll review the joint FTA-TAA legislation proposed by the Obama administration and Senate Democrats last week. Familiarity with the White House's brilliant plan and recent events is presumed.